SCRAM: The Power of a Signature?
Today even in Daubert states, lawyers are not allowed to challenge a BrAC reading with the partition ratio, knowing that nearly every read on a PBT is erroneous plus or minus due to this factor, the legal community has adopted 2100:1 as legally accepted. The "gatekeeper's" mind has been made, which now holds true in SCRAM cases in some Texas courts, observe:
"We do use the SCRAM device in Parker County. It is mainly used as a probation condition and not as a condition of bond. In terms of proving it up--as a condition of any plea the Defendant and their counsel have to sign the following stipulation: STIPULATION RELATING TO ADMISSIBILITY OF SECURE CONTINUOUS REMOTE ALCOHOL MONITORCOME NOW the State of Texas, by and through her undersigned Assistant District Attorney, and the Defendant, XXXXXXXXXX, both personally and as represented by the counsel of her choosing, XXXXXXXXXX, and present this Stipulation Relating to Admissibility of Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor as follows:
1. Both parties agree that for expert testimony to be valid, that Texas Rule of Evidence 702 requires that three prerequisites be met:
a. the witness must be qualified;
b. the proposed testimony must be grounded in scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge; and
c. the testimony must assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence admitted at trial or determining a fact in issue.
2. With respect to the first component, that the witness must be qualified, both parties stipulate and agree that the director of the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM) program is a qualified witness to present expert testimony relating to said program and not to object to evidence of the SCRAM program on this basis.
3. With respect to the third component, that the testimony must assist the trier of fact, both parties stipulate and agree that said testimony would assist the trier of fact in determining a fact at issue, namely whether the Defendant has engaged in the use of alcohol in violation of his conditions of community supervision and do not object to evidence on the SCRAM program on this basis.
4. With respect to the second component, that the proposed testimony must be grounded in scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge, the parties stipulate and agree that for such evidence to be admissible a showing by clear and convincing evidence must be met that:
a. The underlying scientific theory is valid;
b. The technique applying the theory is valid; andc. The technique was properly applied on the occasion in question.
5. Both parties stipulate and agree that the underlying scientific theory of the SCRAM Program has been proven by clear and convincing evidence and do not object to admissibility of the SCRAM program on this basis.
6. Both parties stipulate and agree that the technique applying the underlying scientific theory of the SCRAM program has been proven by clear and convincing evidence and do not object to admissibility of the SCRAM Program on this basis.
7. The parties have not reached an agreement as to whether or not the technique applying the underlying theory of the SCRAM program was applied properly on any occasion in question. The parties agree that the State of Texas must present proof by clear and convincing evidence on this element.
8. The parties have reached an agreement that this stipulation shall be admissible and binding upon the parties in all future proceedings, including, but not limited to, administrative reviews, motions to revoke, motions to adjudicate, appeals, writs, and all other legal proceedings in this cause.
Signed on December 4, 2007.______________________________ XXXXXXXXXX, Attorney for Defendant______________________________Defendant XXXXXXXXX______________________________Robert S. DuBoiseAssistant District AttorneyApproved by the Court on December 4, 2007.__________________________PRESIDING JUDGE "
Challenging the science is not admissable most likely because this prosecuter rather win than find the truth. Should a signature of a defendant give the legal community the right to turn a blind eye, ignore historical cases that set precedents for a more effective system and abolish Constitutional Rights? One is supposed to have the right to challenge their accuser, in these cases it is SCRAM.
Reference:
http://tdcaa.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=347098965&f=157098965&m=6851076951
"Unthinkable respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth"
Albert Einstein
"We do use the SCRAM device in Parker County. It is mainly used as a probation condition and not as a condition of bond. In terms of proving it up--as a condition of any plea the Defendant and their counsel have to sign the following stipulation: STIPULATION RELATING TO ADMISSIBILITY OF SECURE CONTINUOUS REMOTE ALCOHOL MONITORCOME NOW the State of Texas, by and through her undersigned Assistant District Attorney, and the Defendant, XXXXXXXXXX, both personally and as represented by the counsel of her choosing, XXXXXXXXXX, and present this Stipulation Relating to Admissibility of Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor as follows:
1. Both parties agree that for expert testimony to be valid, that Texas Rule of Evidence 702 requires that three prerequisites be met:
a. the witness must be qualified;
b. the proposed testimony must be grounded in scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge; and
c. the testimony must assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence admitted at trial or determining a fact in issue.
2. With respect to the first component, that the witness must be qualified, both parties stipulate and agree that the director of the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM) program is a qualified witness to present expert testimony relating to said program and not to object to evidence of the SCRAM program on this basis.
3. With respect to the third component, that the testimony must assist the trier of fact, both parties stipulate and agree that said testimony would assist the trier of fact in determining a fact at issue, namely whether the Defendant has engaged in the use of alcohol in violation of his conditions of community supervision and do not object to evidence on the SCRAM program on this basis.
4. With respect to the second component, that the proposed testimony must be grounded in scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge, the parties stipulate and agree that for such evidence to be admissible a showing by clear and convincing evidence must be met that:
a. The underlying scientific theory is valid;
b. The technique applying the theory is valid; andc. The technique was properly applied on the occasion in question.
5. Both parties stipulate and agree that the underlying scientific theory of the SCRAM Program has been proven by clear and convincing evidence and do not object to admissibility of the SCRAM program on this basis.
6. Both parties stipulate and agree that the technique applying the underlying scientific theory of the SCRAM program has been proven by clear and convincing evidence and do not object to admissibility of the SCRAM Program on this basis.
7. The parties have not reached an agreement as to whether or not the technique applying the underlying theory of the SCRAM program was applied properly on any occasion in question. The parties agree that the State of Texas must present proof by clear and convincing evidence on this element.
8. The parties have reached an agreement that this stipulation shall be admissible and binding upon the parties in all future proceedings, including, but not limited to, administrative reviews, motions to revoke, motions to adjudicate, appeals, writs, and all other legal proceedings in this cause.
Signed on December 4, 2007.______________________________ XXXXXXXXXX, Attorney for Defendant______________________________Defendant XXXXXXXXX______________________________Robert S. DuBoiseAssistant District AttorneyApproved by the Court on December 4, 2007.__________________________PRESIDING JUDGE "
Challenging the science is not admissable most likely because this prosecuter rather win than find the truth. Should a signature of a defendant give the legal community the right to turn a blind eye, ignore historical cases that set precedents for a more effective system and abolish Constitutional Rights? One is supposed to have the right to challenge their accuser, in these cases it is SCRAM.
Reference:
http://tdcaa.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=347098965&f=157098965&m=6851076951
"Unthinkable respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth"
Albert Einstein
posted by marcellus91872 at 12:48 PM
12 comments
